A Realistic View at 2019: Part I

[cp176]

Remember, folks. No disparaging comments about Dombrowski in front of cp176. It makes him cranky.

 

Lighten up. Every GM gets criticized on this and every other Sox board on the entire internet. Dombrowski has a great year, but bear in mind the last Sox GM who didn’t “get it done” was Dan Duquette...

 

well well well - yes it just does make me so cranky!

 

Now no joking - I liked and actually still like Dan Duquette. As a matter of fact, while you folk continue to fawn over the exploits of Theo (who we all know is the greatest GM of all time), I'm that guy who thinks that theo was pretty well set up by dan and theo gets far more credit than he deserves but are you saying dave and dan are comparable? ...

 

It just drives me crazy notin not just cranky! ...

[notin]

well well well - yes it just does make me so cranky!

 

Now no joking - I liked and actually still like Dan Duquette. As a matter of fact, while you folk continue to fawn over the exploits of Theo (who we all know is the greatest GM of all time), I'm that guy who thinks that theo was pretty well set up by dan and theo gets far more credit than he deserves but are you saying dave and dan are comparable? ...

 

It just drives me crazy notin not just cranky! ...

 

Well that’s probably a short trip, and one that makes me question reading comprehension. Where did I say Duquette and Dombrowski were comparable? If anything, I excluded Duquette from the GMs With Rings Club, which has 3 Red Sox members.

 

Duquette certainly left Epstein a good foundation, but then Cherington left Dombrowski with a good foundation and BC takes an endless pummeling on this board.

 

As for Duquette, I was one of his biggest critics, but a lot of that was because in many cases he was further ahead of the game than I realized. He wasn’t so bad as a GM. But he still remains the last Sox GM not to win a ring (not counting the interim guys, Mike Port and Mike Hazen)...

[cp176]

Remember, folks. No disparaging comments about Dombrowski in front of cp176. It makes him cranky.

 

Lighten up. Every GM gets criticized on this and every other Sox board on the entire internet. Dombrowski has a great year, but bear in mind the last Sox GM who didn’t “get it done” was Dan Duquette...

 

Oh notin, you can question my reading comprehension skills if you like. I understand. I'm humbled daily by your mastery of all things verbal. With respect to the dombrowski duuquette thing, just thought that I would do what you on occasion, well maybe not just on occasion do - twist those little words to make them work for you. But oh well, I apologize. You put me right in my place once again.

[cp176]

Well that’s probably a short trip, and one that makes me question reading comprehension. Where did I say Duquette and Dombrowski were comparable? If anything, I excluded Duquette from the GMs With Rings Club, which has 3 Red Sox members.

 

Duquette certainly left Epstein a good foundation, but then Cherington left Dombrowski with a good foundation and BC takes an endless pummeling on this board.

 

As for Duquette, I was one of his biggest critics, but a lot of that was because in many cases he was further ahead of the game than I realized. He wasn’t so bad as a GM. But he still remains the last Sox GM not to win a ring (not counting the interim guys, Mike Port and Mike Hazen)...

 

Hey now notin - what's up with that probably a short trip comment - hmm. I can go there if that is what you want.

[moonslav59]

what the hell do you mean you guys??? it's all me and that's it!!! lol

 

dgalehouse wrote this

 

Margot , Asuaje and Guerra were our future ? Now , three years , three A.L. East titles and one Word Series Championship later , not one of them could even crack our lineup.

 

...and I've heard these strawman arguments for years.

 

I am not for hoarding prospects and never was, in fact I usually suggest trading them more often than others. I faced the same misguided criticism on the old site, too.

 

My beef with Kimbrel was not Kimbrel's skill level. I knew he was the best (or top 3).

 

It was not his contract. It was not the 4 prospects. It was both combined.

 

I have looked at the trade in hindsight and said it looks a lot better for two reasons:

1) The players we dealt have not done all that great.

2) Kimbrel's contract quickly looked better in light of the exponential growth of FA closer salaries.

 

The jump being made is that I am claiming I wanted to keep Margot, Allen, Guerra and Asuaje. Nothing is further from the truth. I must have suggested dozens of trades involving Margot and/or Guerra... just not for players making $13M and only pitching 50-65 innings a year.

 

If someone wants to argue the value of the closer as being higher than what I think it is, fine. I get those arguments.

 

If someone wants to claim that in hindsight, the deal looks pretty good, I can't argue too much.

 

If someone wants to claim I'm naive to think we could have traded that package plus another top prospect for a top starter, I'm fine with that.

 

At least the argument is based on what my position was and still is to some extent.

 

[Dojji]

and only pitching 50-65 innings a year.

 

This is what I thought the actual problem was. You have no issue with Kimbrel. You don't like closers.

 

It's probably the single stupidest thing Bill James ever said, and his fanatics treat it as dogmatic truth just like everything else. Yes, a closer's value isn't that great in the regular season, at least to the extent that the difference in wins between a mediocre closer and an elite one is only 2-3 games or so Bad stretches and small hiccups and the occasional blown game are so much noise over 162 games, and they tend to average out and not cost a team too badly, especially in the Wild Card era. Jamesian dogma is right about that in theory, on paper.

 

But time and time and time and time again it has been proven that the value and necessity of a good closer rises significantly in the postseason. Teams that cheap out on the closer's role or just wind up with inadequate talent there have a heck of a time closing out playoff series and that one game where your guy is having a bad night goes from just one game out of 162+, to Schiraldi blowing game 6 of the 1986 World Series. or worse, the experience the Mets had with the normally fairly dependable Jeurys Familia in the 2015 Series

 

Because real talk here, Familia is almost exactly what you guys are talking about when you talk about bringing in cost controlled, second tier closers. And we all saw how that ended.

 

I mean we actually had a great closer, and finishing out the 9th inning was still more of an adventure than my blood pressure wanted it to be. Imagine if we were trying to get through some of the very best talent in Major League Baseball, in this year where unlike so many the actual best teams were the ones competing in the playoffs, with the Andrew Baileys of the world all we had to try to put the lid on a tight game. Our margin of error in those close and late games isn't so huge that I'm going to be all for deliberately taking a bite out of it in order to not even save all that much of someone else's money.

 

If you aren't trying to win a World Series, there's no particular reason to go overboard looking for a top closer.

 

But when on earth is that ever true for the Boston Red Sox?

Edited November 8, 2018 by Dojji

[cp176]

dgalehouse wrote this

 

Margot , Asuaje and Guerra were our future ? Now , three years , three A.L. East titles and one Word Series Championship later , not one of them could even crack our lineup.

 

...and I've heard these strawman arguments for years.

 

I am not for hoarding prospects and never was, in fact I usually suggest trading them more often than others. I faced the same misguided criticism on the old site, too.

 

My beef with Kimbrel was not Kimbrel's skill level. I knew he was the best (or top 3).

 

It was not his contract. It was not the 4 prospects. It was both combined.

 

I have looked at the trade in hindsight and said it looks a lot better for two reasons:

1) The players we dealt have not done all that great.

2) Kimbrel's contract quickly looked better in light of the exponential growth of FA closer salaries.

 

The jump being made is that I am claiming I wanted to keep Margot, Allen, Guerra and Asuaje. Nothing is further from the truth. I must have suggested dozens of trades involving Margot and/or Guerra... just not for players making $13M and only pitching 50-65 innings a year.

 

If someone wants to argue the value of the closer as being higher than what I think it is, fine. I get those arguments.

 

If someone wants to claim that in hindsight, the deal looks pretty good, I can't argue too much.

 

If someone wants to claim I'm naive to think we could have traded that package plus another top prospect for a top starter, I'm fine with that.

 

At least the argument is based on what my position was and still is to some extent.

 

 

It is all good with me Moon. You have done a wonderful job of justifying your opinion. I don't agree with it simply because I liked the trade. I was very much in favor of trading the prospects that were traded in order to acquire a beyond impact player who helped us immediately. I'm sure that there were lots of other directions to turn and stuff to consider but I was and still am very much in favor of the deal that brought us Kimbrel. I also understand that many of the positions I have taken I do not have nearly the information to back them up that you have. I'm ok with that.

I should also add that I didn't like seeing our prospects traded. I liked those guys. Your opinion and overall take on things might be right. You see, in my world, I value your option even though I might not agree. Once again, you might be right.

Edited November 8, 2018 by cp176

[Bellhorn04]

This is what I thought the actual problem was. You have no issue with Kimbrel. You don't like closers.

 

It's probably the single stupidest thing Bill James ever said, and his fanatics treat it as dogmatic truth just like everything else. Yes, a closer's value isn't that great in the regular season, at least to the extent that the difference in wins between a mediocre closer and an elite one is only 2-3 games or so Bad stretches and small hiccups and the occasional blown game are so much noise over 162 games, and they tend to average out and not cost a team too badly, especially in the Wild Card era. Jamesian dogma is right about that in theory, on paper.

 

But time and time and time and time again it has been proven that the value and necessity of a good closer rises significantly in the postseason. Teams that cheap out on the closer's role or just wind up with inadequate talent there have a heck of a time closing out playoff series and that one game where your guy is having a bad night goes from just one game out of 162+, to Schiraldi blowing game 6 of the 1986 World Series. or worse, the experience the Mets had with the normally fairly dependable Jeurys Familia in the 2015 Series

 

Because real talk here, Familia is almost exactly what you guys are talking about when you talk about bringing in cost controlled, second tier closers. And we all saw how that ended.

 

I mean we actually had a great closer, and finishing out the 9th inning was still more of an adventure than my blood pressure wanted it to be. Imagine if we were trying to get through some of the very best talent in Major League Baseball, in this year where unlike so many the actual best teams were the ones competing in the playoffs, with the Andrew Baileys of the world all we had to try to put the lid on a tight game. Our margin of error in those close and late games isn't so huge that I'm going to be all for deliberately taking a bite out of it in order to not even save all that much of someone else's money.

 

If you aren't trying to win a World Series, there's no particular reason to go overboard looking for a top closer.

 

But when on earth is that ever true for the Boston Red Sox?

 

Dojji, if Kimbrel had had a good postseason this year I would agree with you.

 

But the fact is he had a horrendous postseason.

 

10.2 innings

9 hits

8 walks

2 HBP

2 HR

7 ER

.842 OPSa

 

We were fortunate that our other late inning relievers (including our starters) were rock solid, and also that we made some defensive plays behind Kimbrel. Because he was shaky to put it kindly.

[notin]

Dojji, if Kimbrel had had a good postseason this year I would agree with you.

 

But the fact is he had a horrendous postseason.

 

10.2 innings

9 hits

8 walks

2 HBP

2 HR

7 ER

.842 OPSa

 

We were fortunate that our other late inning relievers (including our starters) were rock solid, and also that we made some defensive plays behind Kimbrel. Because he was shaky to put it kindly.

 

Not to mention,it’s never been proven, let alone time and time again, that you need a closer in the postseason. And you only have to go back as far as the 2016 Astros to see one example. There are plenty of others as well. In fact, a significant number of World Series champions have used multiple closers over the course of the season....

[Bellhorn04]

Not to mention,it’s never been proven, let alone time and time again, that you need a closer in the postseason. And you only have to go back as far as the 2016 Astros to see one example. There are plenty of others as well. In fact, a significant number of World Series champions have used multiple closers over the course of the season....

 

It's true. You can't really find one rule of thumb that plays out consistently across every postseason.

 

I was fond of that argument about needing a great closer for the postseason myself because of Foulke, Papelbon and Koji.

 

But the last 2 postseasons have contradicted that rule big time.

[notin]

Hey now notin - what's up with that probably a short trip comment - hmm. I can go there if that is what you want.

 

And you always insist you want to. I was teasing, of course. I just forgot to put in my to indicate this...

[notin]

It's true. You can't really find one rule of thumb that plays out consistently across every postseason.

 

I was fond of that argument about needing a great closer for the postseason myself because of Foulke, Papelbon and Koji.

 

But the last 2 postseasons have contradicted that rule big time.

 

I believe it was the 2012 Cardinals who broke every myth about needs to win a World Series. Their ace went down in March for T.J. and they used at least 5 different closers over the course of the season, none of whom were acquired in midseason trades that year.

 

Even looking at Koji, who was really never a closer before the Sox. And the Sox didn’t bring him in for that role, but had to use him there becaise the two experienced closers they brought in both went down with injuries.

 

Really the only truth is that in order to win, a team simply has to get hot at the right time. This is easier for some teams than others...

Edited November 8, 2018 by notin

[moonslav59]

This is what I thought the actual problem was. You have no issue with Kimbrel. You don't like closers.

 

It's probably the single stupidest thing Bill James ever said, and his fanatics treat it as dogmatic truth just like everything else. Yes, a closer's value isn't that great in the regular season, at least to the extent that the difference in wins between a mediocre closer and an elite one is only 2-3 games or so Bad stretches and small hiccups and the occasional blown game are so much noise over 162 games, and they tend to average out and not cost a team too badly, especially in the Wild Card era. Jamesian dogma is right about that in theory, on paper.

 

But time and time and time and time again it has been proven that the value and necessity of a good closer rises significantly in the postseason. Teams that cheap out on the closer's role or just wind up with inadequate talent there have a heck of a time closing out playoff series and that one game where your guy is having a bad night goes from just one game out of 162+, to Schiraldi blowing game 6 of the 1986 World Series. or worse, the experience the Mets had with the normally fairly dependable Jeurys Familia in the 2015 Series

 

Because real talk here, Familia is almost exactly what you guys are talking about when you talk about bringing in cost controlled, second tier closers. And we all saw how that ended.

 

I mean we actually had a great closer, and finishing out the 9th inning was still more of an adventure than my blood pressure wanted it to be. Imagine if we were trying to get through some of the very best talent in Major League Baseball, in this year where unlike so many the actual best teams were the ones competing in the playoffs, with the Andrew Baileys of the world all we had to try to put the lid on a tight game. Our margin of error in those close and late games isn't so huge that I'm going to be all for deliberately taking a bite out of it in order to not even save all that much of someone else's money.

 

If you aren't trying to win a World Series, there's no particular reason to go overboard looking for a top closer.

 

But when on earth is that ever true for the Boston Red Sox?

 

I probably don't think closers are as valuable as some here, but of course they have value.

 

I just don't want to pay a 50-70 IP guy as much as a good starter who gives me 180-220. I realize high leverage situations are very important, but to me, so are the first few innings, where the game often seems to be decided. Without very good starters, there are often much fewer save situations.

 

The other main issue is about how to get a top closer. Free agency has been a good way, and that's how we got Foulke, but costs of closers have gone way up compared to other positions, and I can agree they probably were underpaid a decade ago. Trades are good ways to get closers, too, and the Uehara trade was one of Ben's best deals. The Kimbrel trade worked, as we got a ring, and he was a significant part of our historic 108 win regular season. Look, I loved the Sale trade. I had been scheming and suggesting trades for him for years and years. Not only was Sale a top starter in MLB, his salary was maybe 1/4th of his FA market value. The Kimbrel salary was more like a FA contract at the time of the deal and ended up being maybe 75% of top FA closer market value near the end. That's the part that bothered me, but again, we won a ring, so the deal worked out fine. Grooming a closer from within your own system is the bets way, of course, but it's not always that easy. Some could call it luck that we converted Papelbon from a starter.

 

I'm not sure Kelly, Barnes or Brasier are closer material, just like nobody knew for sure Koji was. Koji had much better numbers for 3 years before being made a closer than anyone we have now, and talk of Feltman sounds encouraging but far away, IMO.

 

I'd love to get a very good closer this winter, and if Henry is willing to spend enough to get someone like Eovaldi and Kimbrel/Miller/Ottavino, then I'm more than fine with the idea, unless their contracts end up keeping us from re-signing our core stars in 1-3 years. If you know me, I always go on the assumption we have an upper limit on spending. I know some disagree, and that's fine, but when I say, "Don't spend large and long on a closer," it's within the either/ or context.

[moonslav59]

It is all good with me Moon. You have done a wonderful job of justifying your opinion. I don't agree with it simply because I liked the trade. I was very much in favor of trading the prospects that were traded in order to acquire a beyond impact player who helped us immediately. I'm sure that there were lots of other directions to turn and stuff to consider but I was and still am very much in favor of the deal that brought us Kimbrel. I also understand that many of the positions I have taken I do not have nearly the information to back them up that you have. I'm ok with that.

I should also add that I didn't like seeing our prospects traded. I liked those guys. Your opinion and overall take on things might be right. You see, in my world, I value your option even though I might not agree. Once again, you might be right.

 

At the time of the trade I thought Kimbrel was a top 2-3 closer in MLB and projected to be a top 3-5 closer for the remainder of his team control years. It was never about not wanting Kimbrel or the like (and there aren't many like him, especially that come cheap). It was the same with Pom. I really liked Pom, even after he stumbled in 2016's second half a a bit. I just thought we could have used Espinoza (with others) to get Sale or Quintana (or both).

 

I've never been big on trading top prospects for 4/5 slot starters, even though Pom showed promise of maybe being a 2/3.

[moonslav59]

I believe it was the 2012 Cardinals who broke every myth about needs to win a World Series. Their ace went down in March for T.J. and they used at least 5 different closers over the course of the season, none of whom were acquired in midseason trades that year.

 

Even looking at Koji, who was really never a closer before the Sox. And the Sox didn’t bring him in for that role, but had to use him there becaise the two experienced closers they brought in both went down with injuries.

 

Really the only truth is that in order to win, a team simply has to get hot at the right time. This is easier for some teams than others...

 

While true, the GM needs to create a pool of players that are good enough to fill in for others and do what it takes to win it all. Maybe Hanrahan or Bailey (oe Aceves), if they stayed healthy, could have led us to a ring with Koji being a top set-up man on the team.

 

Or not.

[notin]

I wouldn’t mind if Pomeranz returned. When healthy, he’s much better than he showed last year.

 

And he might be relatively cheap if the Sox do spend heavily on a closer like Kimbrel...

[notin]

Maybe Hanrahan or Bailey (oe Aceves), if they stayed healthy, could have led us to a ring with Koji being a top set-up man on the team.

 

 

That was very likely the plan. In fact, Koji appeared to be pretty far down the bullpen later when he was acquired...

[moonslav59]

That was very likely the plan. In fact, Koji appeared to be pretty far down the bullpen later when he was acquired...

 

...which is something I never understood, even at the time. The guy had awesome numbers for 3 straight years. Great WHIPs, K/9s and K/BB numbers.

[kenmeister]

Hey all this is a great discussion. Duquette being the last Sox GM to not win it all; what a great trivia question!

 

All I can add to the conversation is ... don’t listen to me. I was the one who wasn’t happy with the Beeks for Eovaldi trade. Now of course I’m like, “Resign him! Yesterday!”

[notin]

Hey all this is a great discussion. Duquette being the last Sox GM to not win it all; what a great trivia question!

 

As the originator of that factoid, I do feel it is necessary to point out that Duquette was the last Sox GM to have the position for more than one year and not win it all. The Sox did have two interim GMs who I think need to be called the Interim Mike’s (Mike Port and Mike Hazen) who did not win a ring in their one year tenures...

[moonslav59]

Hey all this is a great discussion. Duquette being the last Sox GM to not win it all; what a great trivia question!

 

 

Mike Port in 2002, but I guess he was "interim".

[notin]

Mike Port in 2002, but I guess he was "interim".

 

And Mike Hazen in 2015. The Interim Mike’s...

[OH FOY]

If I were the Mariners, I would take the chance on Swihart. Costs nothing, and everything to gain. They just went through a Catcher, that plays great Defense, and had one good season, hitting. Sounds like Vazquez to me. I would take the chance on Swihart. Cost controlled, and probably cost a pair of Socks, for a Former 1st Rounder.

[OH FOY]

July 8 - Aug. 31, Leon was 28-8 catching, and mostly without Sale, during the Dog days of Summer. Hardest time of the year for a Catcher.

[moonslav59]

And Mike Hazen in 2015. The Interim Mike’s...

 

Wasn't that just for a few months?

[notin]

If I were the Mariners, I would take the chance on Swihart. Costs nothing, and everything to gain. They just went through a Catcher, that plays great Defense, and had one good season, hitting. Sounds like Vazquez to me. I would take the chance on Swihart. Cost controlled, and probably cost a pair of Socks, for a Former 1st Rounder.

 

If Swihart could be had so cheaply, he would have already been dealt and the Sox might not have released Hanley...

[moonslav59]

July 8 - Aug. 31, Leon was 28-8 catching, and mostly without Sale, during the Dog days of Summer. Hardest time of the year for a Catcher.

 

I'm not down-playing Leon. I have been one of his strongest defenders. His intangibles and unmeasurables are off-the-charts.

 

I'd like to keep Vaz & Leon, but I don't think Swihart is anything more than a throw-in to team looking to try anything at catcher and not looking for a 2019 ring... like Seattle.

[notin]

Wasn't that just for a few months?

 

The whole year before going to Arizona. Technically Dombrowski has never really had the title of GM, but Hazen did under him despite Dombrowski handling the more public duties of the role...

[moonslav59]

The whole year before going to Arizona. Technically Dombrowski has never really had the title of GM, but Hazen did under him despite Dombrowski handling the more public duties of the role...

 

Okay, I guess I just viewed DD as the real GM.

[notin]

I'm not down-playing Leon. I have been one of his strongest defenders. His intangibles and unmeasurables are off-the-charts.

 

I'd like to keep Vaz & Leon, but I don't think Swihart is anything more than a throw-in to team looking to try anything at catcher and not looking for a 2019 ring... like Seattle.

 

A deal of Swihart (-0.3 fWAR) and Brian Johnson (0.4 fWAR) for Healy (-0.8 fWAR) and Colome (1.0 fWAR) does add up in that respects. And the Sox fill two needs, eliminate two surpluses and take on only the arbitration cost of Colome....